[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> 1- If the pro-sumti is overtly quantified, then the new > quantification is restricted to the same set over which > the antecedent's quantification was restricted > > 2- If the pro-sumti is not overtly quantified and is still > within the scope of its antecedent's quantifier, then it > is a variable bound by that quantifier > > 3- If the pro-sumti is not overtly quantified and it is > outside the scope of its antecedent's quantifier, then > it is taken to have a default quantifier (ro?, su'o?) > that starts a new quantification over the same set over > which the antecedent was quantified A, Might we ever want to get interpretation 2, bound variable, but apply a quantifier or relevant LAhE to it? (E.g. if the the variable already expresses a za'umei.)
To answer that, first we need to sort out LAhE.
There are (at least) two competing interpretations.
I1. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE ro lo broda}.
I2. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE le selcmi be ro broda}
I favour (I2), but Nick for example used (I1) in his {kau}
expansion, and I think I remember Lojbab arguing for (I1)
at some point too.
To give a concrete example, {lu'i ro lo broda} I think
everybody agrees is {lo'i broda}, but {lu'i lo'i broda}
is {lo'i broda} according to (I1) or the set with {lo'i
broda} as its only member, according to (I2).
Anyway, I don't see how A could be a problem if LAhEs
work as in (I2).
B. Is it a problem if the bound variable is reused so often in mode 2 that the speaker/hearer forgets what the underlying set was?
Mode 2 would seem to be the least problematic in this regard. It is more likely one would forget the restrictions when there are re-quantifications, as in 1 and 3, right?
But unless you think these, and A in particular, are serious problems, I think your solution is likely the best one.
I was thinking that the default quantifier for mode 3
should probably be {tu'o} rather than {su'o} or {ro}.
In many cases, perhaps most, the antecedent is a singular
term, in which case none of this really makes any difference,
of course.
BTW, I have drafted but not posted a wiki page arguing that vo'a-series sumti anaphors should behave like ri, & hence be eligible for the scheme you propose, but that nei/no'a sumti anaphors should always follow pattern 1 (precisely because they always do have an explicit or implicit quantifier or LAhE.
Yes, I think it makes sense. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf